Talk:Jersey Joe Walcott
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jersey Joe Walcott article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jersey Joe Walcott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119081101/http://www.camdencounty.com/sheriff/past%20sheriffs.htm to http://www.camdencounty.com/sheriff/past%20sheriffs.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
BoxRec removal edit
- An average sports fan havent heard of many things, that is still not a justified reason to remove BoxRec from there. Виктор Не Вацко (talk) 11:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- WP:UNDUE is a justified reason though. I think the argument for including p4p and weight specific rankings would be the coverage they've been given in the media. I have, literally, never heard "5-star rated fights" or "this person has X number of points from BoxRec". And I use BoxRec on an almost daily basis. It's unnecessary fluff, and in some cases, comes across as promotional. – 2.O.Boxing 11:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- While I can see why some things probably does not belong here (at least for now), I still think that rankings themselves should stay, given the argument you've mentioned yourself. Виктор Не Вацко (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
- WP:UNDUE is a justified reason though. I think the argument for including p4p and weight specific rankings would be the coverage they've been given in the media. I have, literally, never heard "5-star rated fights" or "this person has X number of points from BoxRec". And I use BoxRec on an almost daily basis. It's unnecessary fluff, and in some cases, comes across as promotional. – 2.O.Boxing 11:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)